By Kennedy Maize
The most mature technology for storing energy to generate electricity when power supply is limited is water: pumped storage. The concept is straight forward: use power when it is plentiful to pump water to an elevated reservoir, then run the water downhill through turbines to make power when needed.
It’s simple, it works, it’s been around for many decades. According to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which licenses all hydroelectric projects, most of the existing pumped hydro projects were developed in the 1960s to the 1980s “to complement operation of large, baseload coal and nuclear power plants by balancing electricity load and demand on the transmission grid.”
According to FERC, of total U.S. hydropower capacity of 101 GW, pumped storage projects, found in just 16 states, have total capacity of 19 GW.
The largest U.S. pumped storage project is Virginia’s Bath County Pumped Storage Project, located on the mountainous south-central West Virginia-Virginia state line, with 3 GW of maximum storage capacity. It was built between 1977 and 1985, at a cost of $1.65 billion in 1985 dollars ($4.9 billion today). Bath is the world’s second largest pumped storage facility, behind only China’s 3,600-MW Fengning Pumped Storage Power Station, which went into service in August 2024.
Times have changed as intermittent renewables – specifically solar and wind – have risen and conventional dispatchable generation has waned. Storing energy has become a much more pressing problem.
The International Energy Agency projects that renewables will account for more than 50% of total global electric generation by 2050. International Water Power magazine reported, “Eddie Rich, CEO of the International Hydropower Association (IHA), and Vice-Chair of Global Renewables Alliance, commented that a lack of long duration energy storage has been the ignored crisis within the current energy crisis.’”
Getting new projects off the ground is difficult. It’s a matter of costs, environmental concerns, regulatory hurdles, sometimes convoluted corporate structures, and public support.
An example of the many problems pumped hydro can face is found in the California desert, the 1,300-MW Eagle Mountain pumped storage project, which surfaced more than 30 years ago. It has so far been unable to get close to the planning finish line, much less construction. The project by a NextEra subsidiary would be sited at an abandoned Kaiser Steel iron mine in the Coachella Valley 1.5 miles from the Joshua Tree National Park, which surrounds it on three sides. The pumped storage facility would use abandoned mining pits for the reservoirs needed to make the storage work.
In the most recent episode of the Eagle Mountain saga, the developer this month agreed to pay Riverside County $77 million in “community benefits” to offset the impact of the project. Most of the site is on federal lands. The Palm Springs Desert Sun commented, “Getting anything built on the site, once a Kaiser Steel iron ore mining operation, has proved torturous.”
The project has a FERC license (Docket P-13123), but has been tangled in litigation brought by the National Parks and Conservation Association for the past six years (No. 19-72915 9th Cir. filed 11/18/2019). NextEra is at FERC seeking a license extension to allow construction to begin in 2028.
Another case of the problems facing pumped storage involves two projects on Navajo tribal land near Page, Ariz., that FERC rejected in February, Western Navajo Pumped Storage 1 and Western Navajo Pumped Storage 2. Renewable Energy World reported, “FERC noted that the applicants named the projects the Western Navajo Pumped Storage 1 Project and the Western Navajo Pumped Storage 2 Project but the proposed projects are not in any way affiliated with the Navajo Nation and the Navajo Nation has had no role in the applicants’ pursuit of the projects. To avoid the impression that the Navajo Nation is involved in developing the projects, FERC omitted ‘Navajo’ from the project names.”
At the FERC meeting rejecting the projects, Willie Phillips, then FERC’s chairman, said the commission is “committed” to assuring that “tribal interests are carefully considered.”
Both projects were designed for 765-MW of generating capacity. Boston-based Rye Development, a joint venture of France’s EDF and U.S. firm Climate Adaptive Infrastructure, is developing the Navajo project. On March 14, Rye reapplied at FERC for a preliminary permit for the first 765-MW project.
In Oklahoma, a somewhat dubious corporation without Sooner State ties and based in Nevada, Southeast Oklahoma Power Corp., has been trying to develop a 1,200-MW pumped storage projection and 100-mile high voltage transmission line on the Kimichi River in southeastern Oklahoma. FERC has repeatedly rejected the project (Docket P-14890), most recently on April 14.
The project faces opposition from the Choctaw Nation Reservation, where the entire project is located. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond also opposes the project. He wrote to FERC last year, “After reviewing and evaluating what limited information the Southeast Oklahoma Power Corporation (SEOPC) has so far disclosed about its hydropower project as well as the FERC pre-application document (PAD) and notice of intent (NOI), we oppose this project.”
A investigation last year by Oklahoma Energy Today found that SEOPC “ is owned and managed by individuals who have no connections whatsoever to Oklahoma.” One of the principals, Aquarian Capital of Plano, Texas, has close ties to China.
The Quad Report: to subscribe, for back issues, and a searchable archive